I think The Beatles were more influential than The Beach Boys because they were more innovative and musically more versatile.

I think they were pretty much equals in that matter. Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney have both confirmed on several occasions that they felt like they kept raising the bar for each other. And it could be argued that at least around 1966, The Beach Boys were ahead of The Beatles creatively. I don't think that 'Revolver' was better, more creative, more progressive, more innovative or deeper than 'Pet Sounds' and the 'Good Vibrations' single were.

I don't know if anyone has the 'Ready, Steady, Win!' LP or CD, but it came about from a 1964 beat competition on the TV programme 'Ready, Steady, Go' to find a new beat group.

They did indeed find a new beat group, the fabulous Bo Street Runners, but the point about the spin off LP is that all the groups who imitated The Beatles lacked The Beatles professionalism in the studio and song writing ability. However, the other 50% of finalists, to all intents and purposes, mimicked The Stones, and they were far more successful at it because The Stones were always much looser as a group.

So The Beach Boys are harder to imitate than The Beatles who are harder to imitate than The Stones!

While The Yardbirds may have released an Indian influenced song before The Beatles a song like "Love You To" was certainly a world music type of song that none of their peers were doing at the time of it's release.

Yes, but what's the point? The Beatles, the Byrds and the Yardbirds all did amazing advances in the mid-60's due to heavy experimentation, why should we undervalue one band in favor of another?

If you tell me that the Beatles were better, I would agree, but I don't think that they experimented harder than the others.

And it could be argued that at least around 1966, The Beach Boys were ahead of The Beatles creatively. I don't think that 'Revolver' was better, more creative, more progressive, more innovative or deeper than 'Pet Sounds' and the 'Good Vibrations' single were.

Both albums were highly important in the development of rock music, but in favor of Revolver I would say that it was more revolutionary. Pet Sounds was creative, innovative and everything, but it was much more predictable than Revolver. "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the most obvious example, it still sounds weird today.

Both albums were highly important in the development of rock music, but in favor of Revolver I would say that it was more revolutionary. Pet Sounds was creative, innovative and everything, but it was much more predictable than Revolver. "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the most obvious example, it still sounds weird today.

I fully agree with that statement. Although I love the Beach Boys, I think that the Beatles were ahead of their time with "Revolver", which I found far more progressive than "Pet Sounds".Snoopy

I think they were pretty much equals in that matter. Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney have both confirmed on several occasions that they felt like they kept raising the bar for each other. And it could be argued that at least around 1966, The Beach Boys were ahead of The Beatles creatively. I don't think that 'Revolver' was better, more creative, more progressive, more innovative or deeper than 'Pet Sounds' and the 'Good Vibrations' single were.

I actually don't agree those early Beatles songs "If I Fell," "I'll Be Back," "No Reply," etc. were more musically and lyrically sophisticated than what The Beach Boys were doing IMO at the same time. How many rock artists were getting articles written about them by classical musicians when "Not A Second Time" was recorded?

I think Brian Wilson when he heard Rubber Soul knew it was time to ditch the surf sound and get to something more serious hence Pet Sounds. I don't discredit The Beach Boys influence on The Beatles but I think it was The Beatles who was doing the influencing first because no one was doing rock and roll with tight harmonies more consistently better than them.

Yes, but what's the point? The Beatles, the Byrds and the Yardbirds all did amazing advances in the mid-60's due to heavy experimentation, why should we undervalue one band in favor of another?

If you tell me that the Beatles were better, I would agree, but I don't think that they experimented harder than the others.

I have never undervalued The Byrds and The Yardbirds as I like them but I think The Beatles did more to break the pre-conceived notions of rock music than those bands. If you listen to tracks like "Eleanor Rigby" and "She's Leaving Home" especially the latter one. Rock music is about loud guitars and rebelling against your parents. "She's Leaving Home" backing is a string octet and lyrically you have two generations speaking one with the girl leaving home and Lennon in the background vocally playing the grieving parent.

I found this article on The Beatles I thought it would be interesting for this topic. Some I actually agree with.

The Beatles catalog has been wildly influential over the past half-century. In fact, there are a lot of Beatles filler tracks and throw-aways that seem to foreshadow entire genres of current rock music.

Listen to these tracks and you can hear the sonic blueprint for some of the various "movements" and "scenes" we've been occupying ourselves with for the 40 years since John, Paul, George and Ringo strolled out of the studio and over the crosswalk.

Did The Beatles serve as the main influence on the bands that make this music? Probably not, but their music is so ubiquitous that it's safe to say it played a part in priming both artists and audiences for what was to come.

Oh, and as an added bonus this list is presented with some of YouTube's most awful homemade music videos! Hey, not everything influenced by the Beatles can be great.

Song: "When I'm Sixty-Four"Year: 1967Genre: Twee PopBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: Moldy Peaches, Talulah Gosh, Belle and SebastianComposition-wise, "When I'm Sixty-Four," is truly peculiar; is there any other well-known song in the history of popular music which uses a clarinet so prominently? The novel, classically-tinted, instrumentation is only a tiny part of its inherent tweeness, though. Just listen to those super schmaltzy lyrics about the simple joys growing old together - this song surely sounds like something Kimya Dawson wrote for the Juno soundtrack.

Song: "Rocky RaccoonYear: 1968"Genre: Alt-countryBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: Drive-By Truckers, Band Of Horses, The entire roster of the Bloodshot Records labelThe Beatles played with country and western sounds on a number of songs throughout their career -- going all the way back to "What Goes On" from Rubber Soul and their cover of "Act Naturally" on Help! -- but it's "Rocky Raccoon," that puts together a blueprint for the coming alt-country/Americana/Insurgent movement.The song is a silly story of a cowboy from the Black Hills of South Dakota who finds God after getting a lead plug fired by his wife's new lover. Actually, Paul McCartney has said he was "basically spoofing the folksinger." It's a great song, though it's really not the sort of thing any British band had any business writing. That's sort of my point, though. The Beatles were doing their best impersonation of country and folk musicians of the time who were trying to reclaim the traditional music of rural America by writing their own stories about bloody incidents inside old west saloons. If four guys from Liverpool could try their hand at that, why not a North Carolina kid like Ryan Adams?

Song: "Helter Skelter"Year: 1968Genre: PunkBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: The Stooges, Sonic Youth, Motley CrueLike a lot of songs on this list, "Helter Skelter" was written as an answer to another popular band of the time. After Pete Townshend described "I Can See for Miles," as the loudest, rawest, dirtiest song his band has recorded McCartney tried to one-up him. Yes, the ultimate proto-punk record, the first Stooges album, was in the works at the time, but it's worth remembering that Iggy's debut tanked upon release. "Helter Skelter," on the other hand, gained a huge audience, getting people ready for the harder-edged punk and metal sounds of the decade to come.

Song: Yellow SubmarineYear: 1966Genre: Hipster Children's MusicBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: Wee Hairy Beasties, They Might Be Giants (current kindie version) The Rockabye Baby! series, Unlike the rest of this list "Yellow Submarine" was actually released as a single. Still, it certainly feels like a b-side that was pressed onto a 7-inch because the Beatles were big enough to do whatever they wanted, and what they wanted to do was to toss Ringo a bone.This McCartney-penned track was actually quite successful as a single, too, prompting hand-wringing from conservatives who were touchy about John Lennon's then-recent "Bigger Than Jesus" remark and who suspected it just had to be a big dirty hippie drug reference. Nope. The song is a straightforward children's sing-along about a sailor which was just simple enough for The Least Talented Beatle to sing-talk and which went on to directly influence well-meaning indie-type parents who want their kids to grow up with impeccable taste.

Song: Revolution 9Year: 1968Genre: Art rockBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: Radiohead, Deerhoof, Lou ReedThe Beatles' songwriting started tilting toward the avant-garde with Revolver, which contained slightly off-center songs like the stellar "Tomorrow Never Knows." By their eponymous 1968 album the band had been selling so many records for so long that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.So John Lennon, presumably trying to impress his new gf Yoko (who actually has a writing credit on this track) tossed eight minutes of experimental noise onto side four of the White Album. Yes, it's a steaming pile of sh*t but it also opened minds, functioning as a gateway to art rock for generations of kids who started listening to early Beatles pop and soon found themselves trying to understand this disaster. At 8:22, it's also the longest track the band ever released -- more than four times the length of "Yesterday" (2:03) and about 1/1,000th as good.

I have never undervalued The Byrds and The Yardbirds as I like them but I think The Beatles did more to break the pre-conceived notions of rock music than those bands. If you listen to tracks like "Eleanor Rigby" and "She's Leaving Home" especially the latter one. Rock music is about loud guitars and rebelling against your parents. "She's Leaving Home" backing is a string octet and lyrically you have two generations speaking one with the girl leaving home and Lennon in the background vocally playing the grieving parent.

But the point was not comparing those bands with the Beatles, I didn't mean to say that the Byrds or the Yardbirds were more influential or more experimental, just that the Beatles weren't the only ones breaking new ground. The Beatles have influenced others and were influenced by others, it was a constant feedback. Maybe the Beatles could do better music, but they were not the only revolutionaries.

Song: Revolution 9Year: 1968Genre: Art rockBands that wouldn't sound the same without it: Radiohead, Deerhoof, Lou ReedThe Beatles' songwriting started tilting toward the avant-garde with Revolver, which contained slightly off-center songs like the stellar "Tomorrow Never Knows." By their eponymous 1968 album the band had been selling so many records for so long that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.So John Lennon, presumably trying to impress his new gf Yoko (who actually has a writing credit on this track) tossed eight minutes of experimental noise onto side four of the White Album. Yes, it's a steaming pile of sh*t but it also opened minds, functioning as a gateway to art rock for generations of kids who started listening to early Beatles pop and soon found themselves trying to understand this disaster. At 8:22, it's also the longest track the band ever released -- more than four times the length of "Yesterday" (2:03) and about 1/1,000th as good.

Actually Jefferson Airplane released a sh*ty sound collage in their album After Bathing At Baxter's, a whole year before the white album.

The Beatles had released three songs that could be considered sound collages in "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite" and "I Am Walrus before they got to "Revolution #9".

"Revolution #9" is a different story it's entirely a long collage of pre-recorded sounds, loops, samples including orchestras, crowds, movies, studio chatter and other random and assorted recordings. By the way After Bathing At Baxter's is an interesting album in all four sides were divided into different suites. I have heard there was a story that the album changed its direction entirely after hearing Sgt. Peppers.

The Beatles had released three songs that could be considered sound collages in "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite" and "I Am Walrus before they got to "Revolution #9".

"Revolution #9" is a different story it's entirely a long collage of pre-recorded sounds, loops, samples including orchestras, crowds, movies, studio chatter and other random and assorted recordings. By the way After Bathing At Baxter's is an interesting album in all four sides were divided into different suites. I have heard there was a story that the album changed its direction entirely after hearing Sgt. Peppers.

You still don't get the point, of course that Jefferson Airplane was influenced by the Beatles, but their "song" was the next step, and then came "Revolution 9", etc. I'm starting to wonder if you think that the Beatles invented everything and noone influenced them. Because you always mention the Beatles innovations and ignore the advances of other artists who were certainly an influence for the Beatles as well.

By the way, the Yardbirds' "Hot House Of Omagarashid" could be considered as an early sound collage as well, released in their album Roger The Engineer in 1966, before Revolver:

You still don't get the point, of course that Jefferson Airplane was influenced by the Beatles, but their "song" was the next step, and then came "Revolution 9", etc. I'm starting to wonder if you think that the Beatles invented everything and noone influenced them. Because you always mention the Beatles innovations and ignore the advances of other artists who were certainly an influence for the Beatles as well.

By the way, the Yardbirds' "Hot House Of Omagarashid" could be considered as an early sound collage as well, released in their album Roger The Engineer in 1966, before Revolver:

The problem is "Hot House Of Omagarashid" is not a sound collage and I have not ignored what other rock musicians were doing. It's my opinion The Beatles were just more forward thinking and I am hardly the one who thinks that. When I say sound collage in rock music I meant sound collages of live looping/sampling like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or sampling like "I Am The Walrus". Now allegedly Stockhausen did these things but he wasn't thinking in terms of mixing these techniques with songwriting right.

Maybe the Jefferson Airplane song you mentioned was the next step forward to "Revolution #9" which I don't agree with maybe listen to the techniques both bands were using but the facts are Beatles were using sound collages in a rock context before them. I would actually compare what The Airplane did with what Frank Zappa Lump Gravy.

The problem is "Hot House Of Omagarashid" is not a sound collage and I have not ignored what other rock musicians were doing. It's my opinion The Beatles were just more forward thinking and I am hardly the one who thinks that. When I say sound collage in rock music I meant sound collages of live looping/sampling like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or sampling like "I Am The Walrus". Now allegedly Stockhausen did these things but he wasn't thinking in terms of mixing these techniques with songwriting right.

Maybe the Jefferson Airplane song you mentioned was the next step forward to "Revolution #9" which I don't agree with maybe listen to the techniques both bands were using but the facts are Beatles were using sound collages in a rock context before them. I would actually compare what The Airplane did with what Frank Zappa Lump Gravy.

I think the point is not to make a comparison about which was the most experimental band, I think that's quite subjective, but if you think that the Beatles were more forward thinking I have no problem with that. My problem with your discourse is that when I mention something some band did before the Beatles, you say that the Beatles went further, and when I say that some band went further at something, you say that the Beatles did it first. The Beatles' popularity also allowed them to make their advances more notorious than other bands, but I don't mean to put the Fab Four down, they are still my very favorite band, but I don't like when those influences the Beatles had from other bands are ignored. It doesn't stain their image, just talks about their open minds to capture the new sounds in the musical ambient. The Beatles was the most important band, but without the contributions of the other bands, the musical revolution wouldn't have been possible.

With regard to the sound collage, that's an endless discussion because it depends on other previous influences. For example, the guitar playing in "Eight Miles High" is not a sound collage, but the feeling of randomness is still there, and it wouldn't be strange that the idea of the weird random sounds of "Tomorrow Never Knows" came from that song. (Note: "Eight Miles High" was released as a single in March 1966 and "Tomorrow Never Knows" was recorded in April 1966.)